Optimal location for SQL USR and PWD

We have created an application in VB6 where mulitple clients access a SQL
Server 2000 database. The application uses the 3tier model. We currently hav
e
20 users, but this will probably increase exponentialy. All users uses the
same SQL username and password and we handle the security in the application
.
I need advice on where and how to store the sql login username and password.
Thank you.If you are using three tiers, the safest place for the USR and PWD is in the
middle tier.
Assuming a COM+ object, you get the administrator to assign the account and
password to the middle tier. Assuming that no one has direct access to that
machine, then the password is pretty safe.
If you manage it all from the client tier, then you must store the passwords
somewhere, encrypt it somehow, and protect the knowledge of how to decrypt
it. There are several routines available out there (try GOOGLE) that you
can use for the encrypt / decrypt.
Russell Fields
"Hugo" <Hugo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7137E0FF-D18F-4FBB-B167-EB63C93FEC44@.microsoft.com...
> We have created an application in VB6 where mulitple clients access a SQL
> Server 2000 database. The application uses the 3tier model. We currently
have
> 20 users, but this will probably increase exponentialy. All users uses the
> same SQL username and password and we handle the security in the
application.
> I need advice on where and how to store the sql login username and
password.
> Thank you.
>|||We have not moved to COM+ yet. I wanted to know if there is any standard
practice for client apps.
I will now the registry with ecryption.
Thank you.

optimal location for database files on SAN?

Hi, we have 2 sql servers that will have all their system databases/user
databases/log files located to a san. what is the best configuration?
note: sql1 performs transactional replication to sql2 (which is used for
reporting):
we have 2 x RAID 1 and 1 x RAID 5. I was thinking:
RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
if I could get access to another RAID 1 how would this sound:
RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
RAID 1: tempdb (from both sql1 and sql2)
RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
Would both servers share the same tempdb? or would there be two instances?
since sql1 replicates to sql2, having all the logs on the same RAID 1 would
increase replication speed?
Any help most appreciated!
thanks, john
i will have access to initially 9 hdd's to build my config, but i might
possibly get a hold of more. any help most appreciated! ciao john
"john r" <johnr@.trailer.com> wrote in message
news:uSqTyAS6FHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi, we have 2 sql servers that will have all their system databases/user
> databases/log files located to a san. what is the best configuration?
> note: sql1 performs transactional replication to sql2 (which is used for
> reporting):
> we have 2 x RAID 1 and 1 x RAID 5. I was thinking:
> RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> if I could get access to another RAID 1 how would this sound:
> RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 1: tempdb (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> Would both servers share the same tempdb? or would there be two instances?
> since sql1 replicates to sql2, having all the logs on the same RAID 1
> would increase replication speed?
> Any help most appreciated!
> thanks, john
>
|||I am not sure if I hit enter or lost the page. I tried an earlier response
Anyway, I suggest Mirroring your OS drive and a Binaries Drive witht the SAN
used for all the data files.
I like mirroring, but that is a bias others will contest.
Without knowing your SAN, I can't say much more. Some SANs don't give you
enough control to worry about RAID levels.
The real question is how many LUNs to the SAN?
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"john r" wrote:

> i will have access to initially 9 hdd's to build my config, but i might
> possibly get a hold of more. any help most appreciated! ciao john
>
> "john r" <johnr@.trailer.com> wrote in message
> news:uSqTyAS6FHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||The primary question for me is how many LUNs do you have.
I like Raid 0+1 (mirroring) rather than Raid-5 and all. Personal bias.
I would look to configure as follows:
Logical C: Mirror, OS files
Logical D: Mirror, Application (including SS) binaries
Logical E; SAN-data and log files.
This presumes 1 LUN, probably fiber, to the SAN.
As I said, I like mirroring. Without knowing which SAN you are using,
though, it is difficult to give advice (foot in mouth?) there. Some SANS do
not give you
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"john r" wrote:

> i will have access to initially 9 hdd's to build my config, but i might
> possibly get a hold of more. any help most appreciated! ciao john
>
> "john r" <johnr@.trailer.com> wrote in message
> news:uSqTyAS6FHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||I believe it is going to depend on the size of your databases and what they
are used for. Are they creating a lot of temp tables in the temp database?
if so, then temp needs two RAID1 volumes, 1 for data, 1 for logs.
Also, whatever config you end up with, separate the log files from the data
files.
Another thing to consider if you have it available is to use RAID1 or RAID10
on your databases. RAID5 is too expensive on the write operation for your
heavily used databases.
I hope this helps.
"john r" <johnr@.trailer.com> wrote in message
news:uSqTyAS6FHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi, we have 2 sql servers that will have all their system databases/user
> databases/log files located to a san. what is the best configuration?
> note: sql1 performs transactional replication to sql2 (which is used for
> reporting):
> we have 2 x RAID 1 and 1 x RAID 5. I was thinking:
> RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> if I could get access to another RAID 1 how would this sound:
> RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 1: tempdb (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> Would both servers share the same tempdb? or would there be two instances?
> since sql1 replicates to sql2, having all the logs on the same RAID 1
> would increase replication speed?
> Any help most appreciated!
> thanks, john
>

optimal location for database files on SAN?

Hi, we have 2 sql servers that will have all their system databases/user
databases/log files located to a san. what is the best configuration?
note: sql1 performs transactional replication to sql2 (which is used for
reporting):
we have 2 x RAID 1 and 1 x RAID 5. I was thinking:
RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
if I could get access to another RAID 1 how would this sound:
RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
RAID 1: tempdb (from both sql1 and sql2)
RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
Would both servers share the same tempdb? or would there be two instances?
since sql1 replicates to sql2, having all the logs on the same RAID 1 would
increase replication speed?
Any help most appreciated!
thanks, johni will have access to initially 9 hdd's to build my config, but i might
possibly get a hold of more. any help most appreciated! ciao john
"john r" <johnr@.trailer.com> wrote in message
news:uSqTyAS6FHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi, we have 2 sql servers that will have all their system databases/user
> databases/log files located to a san. what is the best configuration?
> note: sql1 performs transactional replication to sql2 (which is used for
> reporting):
> we have 2 x RAID 1 and 1 x RAID 5. I was thinking:
> RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> if I could get access to another RAID 1 how would this sound:
> RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 1: tempdb (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> Would both servers share the same tempdb? or would there be two instances?
> since sql1 replicates to sql2, having all the logs on the same RAID 1
> would increase replication speed?
> Any help most appreciated!
> thanks, john
>|||I am not sure if I hit enter or lost the page. I tried an earlier response
Anyway, I suggest Mirroring your OS drive and a Binaries Drive witht the SAN
used for all the data files.
I like mirroring, but that is a bias others will contest.
Without knowing your SAN, I can't say much more. Some SANs don't give you
enough control to worry about RAID levels.
The real question is how many LUNs to the SAN?
--
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"john r" wrote:
> i will have access to initially 9 hdd's to build my config, but i might
> possibly get a hold of more. any help most appreciated! ciao john
>
> "john r" <johnr@.trailer.com> wrote in message
> news:uSqTyAS6FHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi, we have 2 sql servers that will have all their system databases/user
> > databases/log files located to a san. what is the best configuration?
> >
> > note: sql1 performs transactional replication to sql2 (which is used for
> > reporting):
> >
> > we have 2 x RAID 1 and 1 x RAID 5. I was thinking:
> >
> > RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> > RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> > RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> >
> > if I could get access to another RAID 1 how would this sound:
> >
> > RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> > RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> > RAID 1: tempdb (from both sql1 and sql2)
> > RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> >
> > Would both servers share the same tempdb? or would there be two instances?
> >
> > since sql1 replicates to sql2, having all the logs on the same RAID 1
> > would increase replication speed?
> >
> > Any help most appreciated!
> > thanks, john
> >
>
>|||The primary question for me is how many LUNs do you have.
I like Raid 0+1 (mirroring) rather than Raid-5 and all. Personal bias.
I would look to configure as follows:
Logical C: Mirror, OS files
Logical D: Mirror, Application (including SS) binaries
Logical E; SAN-data and log files.
This presumes 1 LUN, probably fiber, to the SAN.
As I said, I like mirroring. Without knowing which SAN you are using,
though, it is difficult to give advice (foot in mouth?) there. Some SANS do
not give you
--
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"john r" wrote:
> i will have access to initially 9 hdd's to build my config, but i might
> possibly get a hold of more. any help most appreciated! ciao john
>
> "john r" <johnr@.trailer.com> wrote in message
> news:uSqTyAS6FHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi, we have 2 sql servers that will have all their system databases/user
> > databases/log files located to a san. what is the best configuration?
> >
> > note: sql1 performs transactional replication to sql2 (which is used for
> > reporting):
> >
> > we have 2 x RAID 1 and 1 x RAID 5. I was thinking:
> >
> > RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> > RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> > RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> >
> > if I could get access to another RAID 1 how would this sound:
> >
> > RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> > RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> > RAID 1: tempdb (from both sql1 and sql2)
> > RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> >
> > Would both servers share the same tempdb? or would there be two instances?
> >
> > since sql1 replicates to sql2, having all the logs on the same RAID 1
> > would increase replication speed?
> >
> > Any help most appreciated!
> > thanks, john
> >
>
>|||I believe it is going to depend on the size of your databases and what they
are used for. Are they creating a lot of temp tables in the temp database?
if so, then temp needs two RAID1 volumes, 1 for data, 1 for logs.
Also, whatever config you end up with, separate the log files from the data
files.
Another thing to consider if you have it available is to use RAID1 or RAID10
on your databases. RAID5 is too expensive on the write operation for your
heavily used databases.
I hope this helps.
"john r" <johnr@.trailer.com> wrote in message
news:uSqTyAS6FHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi, we have 2 sql servers that will have all their system databases/user
> databases/log files located to a san. what is the best configuration?
> note: sql1 performs transactional replication to sql2 (which is used for
> reporting):
> we have 2 x RAID 1 and 1 x RAID 5. I was thinking:
> RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> if I could get access to another RAID 1 how would this sound:
> RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 1: tempdb (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> Would both servers share the same tempdb? or would there be two instances?
> since sql1 replicates to sql2, having all the logs on the same RAID 1
> would increase replication speed?
> Any help most appreciated!
> thanks, john
>

optimal location for database files on SAN?

Hi, we have 2 sql servers that will have all their system databases/user
databases/log files located to a san. what is the best configuration?
note: sql1 performs transactional replication to sql2 (which is used for
reporting):
we have 2 x RAID 1 and 1 x RAID 5. I was thinking:
RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
if I could get access to another RAID 1 how would this sound:
RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
RAID 1: tempdb (from both sql1 and sql2)
RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
Would both servers share the same tempdb? or would there be two instances?
since sql1 replicates to sql2, having all the logs on the same RAID 1 would
increase replication speed?
Any help most appreciated!
thanks, johni will have access to initially 9 hdd's to build my config, but i might
possibly get a hold of more. any help most appreciated! ciao john
"john r" <johnr@.trailer.com> wrote in message
news:uSqTyAS6FHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi, we have 2 sql servers that will have all their system databases/user
> databases/log files located to a san. what is the best configuration?
> note: sql1 performs transactional replication to sql2 (which is used for
> reporting):
> we have 2 x RAID 1 and 1 x RAID 5. I was thinking:
> RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> if I could get access to another RAID 1 how would this sound:
> RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 1: tempdb (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> Would both servers share the same tempdb? or would there be two instances?
> since sql1 replicates to sql2, having all the logs on the same RAID 1
> would increase replication speed?
> Any help most appreciated!
> thanks, john
>|||I am not sure if I hit enter or lost the page. I tried an earlier response
Anyway, I suggest Mirroring your OS drive and a Binaries Drive witht the SAN
used for all the data files.
I like mirroring, but that is a bias others will contest.
Without knowing your SAN, I can't say much more. Some SANs don't give you
enough control to worry about RAID levels.
The real question is how many LUNs to the SAN?
--
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"john r" wrote:

> i will have access to initially 9 hdd's to build my config, but i might
> possibly get a hold of more. any help most appreciated! ciao john
>
> "john r" <johnr@.trailer.com> wrote in message
> news:uSqTyAS6FHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
>|||The primary question for me is how many LUNs do you have.
I like Raid 0+1 (mirroring) rather than Raid-5 and all. Personal bias.
I would look to configure as follows:
Logical C: Mirror, OS files
Logical D: Mirror, Application (including SS) binaries
Logical E; SAN-data and log files.
This presumes 1 LUN, probably fiber, to the SAN.
As I said, I like mirroring. Without knowing which SAN you are using,
though, it is difficult to give advice (foot in mouth?) there. Some SANS do
not give you
--
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"john r" wrote:

> i will have access to initially 9 hdd's to build my config, but i might
> possibly get a hold of more. any help most appreciated! ciao john
>
> "john r" <johnr@.trailer.com> wrote in message
> news:uSqTyAS6FHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
>|||I believe it is going to depend on the size of your databases and what they
are used for. Are they creating a lot of temp tables in the temp database?
if so, then temp needs two RAID1 volumes, 1 for data, 1 for logs.
Also, whatever config you end up with, separate the log files from the data
files.
Another thing to consider if you have it available is to use RAID1 or RAID10
on your databases. RAID5 is too expensive on the write operation for your
heavily used databases.
I hope this helps.
"john r" <johnr@.trailer.com> wrote in message
news:uSqTyAS6FHA.2364@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi, we have 2 sql servers that will have all their system databases/user
> databases/log files located to a san. what is the best configuration?
> note: sql1 performs transactional replication to sql2 (which is used for
> reporting):
> we have 2 x RAID 1 and 1 x RAID 5. I was thinking:
> RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> if I could get access to another RAID 1 how would this sound:
> RAID 1: sql2 user + system data files
> RAID 1: Logs (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 1: tempdb (from both sql1 and sql2)
> RAID 5: sql1 user + system data files
> Would both servers share the same tempdb? or would there be two instances?
> since sql1 replicates to sql2, having all the logs on the same RAID 1
> would increase replication speed?
> Any help most appreciated!
> thanks, john
>

OpenXML query

I am trying to create a stored procedure which opens a file in say location
'C:\xml'
and then pass the content of this opened xml file once opened to OPenXml
does anyone know how to do this.
Thanks in advance.You would have to write an extended stored proc or use the sp_OA stored
proc. In SQL Server 2005, there will be an easier way to read from a file...
Best regards
Michael
"gee57" <gee57@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E0CBF1EB-2D62-45D5-8C82-A20C3BAC1876@.microsoft.com...
>I am trying to create a stored procedure which opens a file in say location
> 'C:\xml'
>
> and then pass the content of this opened xml file once opened to OPenXml
> does anyone know how to do this.
> Thanks in advance.